The Invention of “Traditional” Circus at the Turn of the XXIst Century

Practices of innovation, aesthetic codes, and the myth of “contemporary” in circus arts

Abstract

At the turn of the 20th century, circus was the performing art form most affected by identity changes and the shift of aesthetic codes. After 2000, the artistic prac- tices of circus started to challenge their defined identity as a performing subgenre.

Whereas circus, as a cultural institution, is conventionally rooted in the late 18th century (like most “modern” performing arts), its accepted “classic” structure was codified later, within the shaping of Western cultural identity after the Indus- trial Revolution. This path followed the rise and fall of the equestrian performance (circus’ own defining element), the advent of the music hall industry, the spread of athletic performances, the trade in wild animals, the confrontation with the ris- ing cinema, and other socio-artistic phenomena. The model that emerged from the crossing of those influences, based on a circular space and a modular combination of mostly independent human and animal performances, developed codes of re- sistance roughly between 1870 and 1980, thus shaping a readable “classic” circus model. Its later post-WWII phase would be recognised after 2000 as “tradition- al circus". The term (not without a critical sense) emerged in opposition to new transformative forms of circus, concretely recognisable by the late 1970s. Those forms appeared related to the wide democratisation of practices (circus schools and courses, also connected with the spread of physical theatre pedagogy) and a poetic, if not ironic, distance in the aesthetic of new-born circuses, even with an imagery still related to the idea of “tradition”. By the early 1980s, the term “nou- veau cirque” indicated a progressive dramatisation of performing circus practices; around 2010 the consequent idea of “contemporary circus” started to define the attempt at codifying a new subgenre, in the wave of postdramatic theatre, toward a radical deconstruction not only of the “classic” circus codes, but also of organi- sational modes, shifting from popular entertainment to the cultural industry. This generated a critical appropriation of “new” when, in reality, the innovative traits have been a constant part of circus history across the centuries.

The aim of our research will be to demonstrate that the historical curve of circus was never a “traditional” model but rather a constant movement of transgressions and innovations on given codes (space, performance structu- re, business model, organisational and social forms). We will also attempt to demonstrate that the “dramatisation” of circus performance existed cons- tantly from its origin, as did its profound ties with other artistic genres; and that access to circus practices was never restricted to a micro-society of no- madic communities but, on the contrary, was nourished by leisure and sport practices of urban middle classes. And, de facto, “contemporary” circus, af- ter two intense decades of existence, is fully codifying a new form of “traditi- on”. This article is sourced from the circus historiography, the recent field of circus scholarship studies, as well as the social studies related to the concept of tradition (such as in Howsbawm and Bakhtin), with a final attempt to dif- ferentiate “classic” from “traditional” in the circus field.